--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Rich: The bannings have not been for disagreeing with ID, or expressing skepticism about ID.

Zachriel #21311: That is incorrect. Zachriel has been banned multiple times, not a single one of which was due to untoward behavior, but for on-topic disagreements. This comment resulted in a silent bannination, and a purge of many previous posts.

Unfortunately, the link to "This comment" doesn't work. Biologos dropped the semicolons in the URL.

In the last month, only two or three people were banned. So much for your daily bannings.

In the last year, roughly fifteen to twenty people were banned. That’s nowhere near daily.

In many cases, these bannings were re-bannings, i.e., cases where a person had been banned, then was forgiven, then re-offended and was banned again, or cases where, once banned, the person sneaked back on under a new pseudonym and was banned under the new pseudonym. In other words, the number of *people* banned is fewer than the total number of bannings, which was very small.

The bannings have not been for disagreeing with ID, or expressing skepticism about ID. Otherwise, Francis Beckwith, Allen MacNeill and many others would have been banned. The bannings have been for offensive behavior of one kind or another. Seversky and Nakashima know why they were banned. It wasn’t for offering rational arguments against irreducible complexity.

So probably one person per month has been banned from UD over the past year. This on a web site that posts thousands of comments monthly. Your case is hereby thrown out of court.

Anyone care to disagree with Rich on his judgement?

Forgive me for stating the obvious but Rich is full of it.

Although I can guess why, in my case there was neither warning of nor reason given for the ban. My posts simply stopped appearing.

As I have stated before, they are fully entitled to ban whomsoever they like but it makes Rich's - admittedly tongue-in-cheek - reference to being "thrown out of court" somewhat ironic; I was neither informed of the charges against me nor given the opportunity to confront my accusers and present the case for the defense.

In the last month, only two or three people were banned. So much for your daily bannings.

In the last year, roughly fifteen to twenty people were banned. That’s nowhere near daily.

In many cases, these bannings were re-bannings, i.e., cases where a person had been banned, then was forgiven, then re-offended and was banned again, or cases where, once banned, the person sneaked back on under a new pseudonym and was banned under the new pseudonym. In other words, the number of *people* banned is fewer than the total number of bannings, which was very small.

The bannings have not been for disagreeing with ID, or expressing skepticism about ID. Otherwise, Francis Beckwith, Allen MacNeill and many others would have been banned. The bannings have been for offensive behavior of one kind or another. Seversky and Nakashima know why they were banned. It wasn’t for offering rational arguments against irreducible complexity.

So probably one person per month has been banned from UD over the past year. This on a web site that posts thousands of comments monthly. Your case is hereby thrown out of court.

Anyone care to disagree with Rich on his judgement?

Forgive me for stating the obvious but Rich is full of it.

Although I can guess why, in my case there was neither warning of nor reason given for the ban. My posts simply stopped appearing.

As I have stated before, they are fully entitled to ban whomsoever they like but it makes Rich's - admittedly tongue-in-cheek - reference to being "thrown out of court" somewhat ironic; I was neither informed of the charges against me nor given the opportunity to confront my accusers and present the case for the defense.

One hobby was, until recently, commenting on some of the entrenched Intelligent Design blogs – particularly Uncommon Descent. This blog is notorious for arbitrary censoring and banning of contributors who do not support the party line. For many years I led a charmed life but was recently placed into what those responsible for the blog call moderation. Moderation means that all your comments are inspected before they are published. This can result in a delay of 24 hours and may well mean your comment is not be published at all. I decided this made it no longer worthwhile to comment on UD. So instead I created this blog – hence the title: In Moderation.

However, instead of trying to show where your logic is wrong I thought I would take a moore (sic) positive approach. I am sorry it is so very long. This a shortened version. A fuller version is on my blog.

8:35 amGreat article. I pity those who continue with the pointless acts of ‘investigation.’ They could avoid wasting so much time on that fruitless ‘research’ if only they knew that the whole process has already been explained: God did it.

Maybe someday they’ll see the light and give up this relentless pursuit of ‘knowledge.’

8:35 amGreat article. I pity those who continue with the pointless acts of ‘investigation.’ They could avoid wasting so much time on that fruitless ‘research’ if only they knew that the whole process has already been explained: God did it.

Maybe someday they’ll see the light and give up this relentless pursuit of ‘knowledge.’

John Davison is no longer with us due to abusive personal emails sent to me by him.

This should go in the dictionary as an illustration of "hypocrisy".

Look who's talking about hypocrisy. You and your sycophants are the biggest hypocrites of all.

Hi Kris. How are you? Cuppa tea?

I can tell you're confused by being able to post on any thread and that your posts go through automatically. Clearly we're not on par with such bastions of free speech as ENV, Telic thoughts, Uncommon Dissent, but we're working on it.

Would you agree that [total of banned people] / [total number of posters ] is a good indicator of how strict moderation / censorship is on a board?

It’s gone!!! I left a comment last night on Uncommon Descent that contained no name-calling, no hateful references and no ad hominem attacks but simply disagreed with what she wrote and this morning, I find that the comment has become one with the snows of yesteryear. How can someone call themselves a journalist with any integrity and remove comments they don’t agree with? O’Leary wrote:

Quote

“And, by the way, when Evolution Sunday rolls around in 2011, all Christian Darwinists should pause to reflect on how much their faith owes to these people. (I mention this because I am knee-deep in these blessed dimes of Darwin, for some project I am stuck with.)”

Here is what I wrote:

Quote

Why on earth would my faith owe these people anything? My faith in Jesus and my acceptance of evolutionary biology doesn’t hinge on whether or not these people are atheists. These people were atheists long before they supported evolution. And evolution has been around a lot longer than they have.

The fact that the code of life is globally optimal (given plausible pre-biotic conditions), along with the fact that it hasn't changed significantly in 4 billion years (it's hard to improve upon a global optimum) tells us that the designer of life either got really lucky right off the bat or had learned how to design an optimal code. Evolution is not in the business of making a globally optimal anything.

I think you are looking at the problem as a designer rather than a forensic investigator. 4 billion years into the program we are looking for traces and clues, not hard examples of the designer in action. Or as Mike Gene says, "the faint echoes of teleology".

Yet only the other day Gordon was arguing that cows could not have evolved. So hardly "the faint echoes of teleology".

This wiki page on Aurochs says the designer must have been fiddling round in the plains with them not very long ago at all. Like Gordon says

Quote

Others might want to point out that the body plan involved is well beyond the FSCO/I threshold, so there is a serious question whether we have a mechanism per Darwinist evolutionary theory, that would substantiate that claim, much less observed evidence that would make it conclusive as “fact.”

Or is it still "just a cow"?

It's all so confusing! That's the thing about ID. You can study at one school but beware should you transfer just before the exams! Same answers written down, but you fail because you changed schools!

It's a shame that there's no central venue where they can all make their case, support with evidence and then all agree to get behind the party that makes the best case and follow that evidence to where it leads.

--------------I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moronAgain "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

Don't think the announcement of Muramasa's banning suggests anything like honesty. I happen to know that QuiteID has been banned without any notice, leaving folks at UD to believe that QID has run away.

Dear Clive, Dear Barry: that little troll Joseph frequently uses the term "intellectual coward." In cases like this, it applies to you.

Man up and let Quite ID back in the game, or have the decency to explain why.

--------------"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB